James Whale ticked off by Michael Fish

[SHERITON HOTEL]

On Talk Sport last night James went off on one of his iconoclastic(sp?) intemperate rants about how he wanted to have the 'biggest carbon foot print' of the year (I think it was,not verbatim) and his climate change denyer scientist in the studio chuckled BUT Michael Fish on the phone didn't find this amusing and told him he was being very selfish and irresponsible bradcasting such sentiments, Whaley sounded stunned and sobered up!

Yes I know Whale is one of our few truther allies in the mainstream media but is he qualified to pontificate on climate change?

[Cruise4]

"Yes I know Whale is one of our few truther allies in the mainstream media but is he qualified to pontificate on climate change? "

Well it sounds like he knows the truth about the CO2 scam as well so why not? Better him than Michael Fish, by the sound of it.

You sound like you maybe believe this CO2 nonsense? Do you need some help in finding your way to the truth?

[SHERITON HOTEL]

I know for a fact 'you can't get something for nothing' and 'you pay for your pleasure' and 'what you do comes back to you' and that the basic formula for anthropogenic environmental degradation is 'greed over need' and that 'you cannot green capitalism FACT!'

I recall that guy from the Channel 4 human CO2 climate change debunk 'El Durkin' ten years ago telling us (sic) ALL GREENS ARE NAZIS, am I supposed to trust his witness? I think mother nature tries to cover the landmass of the planet in vegetation and the seas in plankton for a reason and humans treating mother earth as a dirty great commodity to be converted into a luverly pile of cash will cost the earth...literally!

[Cruise4]

No good trying to put up a smokescreen to hide your ignorance.

The question is do YOU think CO2 led Global Warming exists?

[SHERITON HOTEL]

I expect you will now P-R-O-V-E to me and everyone else beyond any doubt that Human CO2 and exponential human desruction of the CO2 sink and distortion of the carbon cycle can in no way alter the climate measurably and that it is the height of vanity to dream humans ever could and it was all a plot against the miners (bonkers Durkin again)hatched by La Thatch' during her years of misrule and I will truly stand corrected!(sssch everyone).

How much water vapour greenhouse gas do you produce when you burn fossil fuels?

[Cruise4]

What are you raving on about...do YOU think CO2 led Global Warming exists or not?

[SHERITON HOTEL]

I'm not "raving" at all, I just challenged you to prove human CO2 was in no way a factor in climate change as you seem to claim to know or imply that you know the definitive truth on anthropogenic CO2 impacts.

. I ...K-N-O-W that no scientist on earth disputes that greenhouse gases and their concentration in the atmosphere give us an average temperature that makes life possible, I know there is a relationship between average temperature and CO2 but it has not yet been proven which is cause and which is effect. I know burning fossil fuels have other damaging effects and that therefore the practice should be discouraged, I understand the concrete manufacturing industry has an even bigger carbon footprint than the internal combustion engine.

[karlos]

One of the problems is this:
They want to use this carbon issue to TAX people. Yet they are not encouraging fuels like bio diesel or ethanol or even hydrogen.
There is no need for anyone to even be using fossil fuels but the powers all want the tax revenue and the companies like shell and bp are all run by the illuminati so they do not want us to stop using their products.

I know for a fact that this carbon issue is simply a scam to raise taxes.
Yes we should cut down on pollution, but governments can help. Why does it cost £29 to fly to scotland by easyjet yet it costs £200 by train?
The train is clean and produces very little carbon yet the plane produces the equivalent of 30,000 cars worth of carbon making the same trip.
There is no tax on aviation fuel.
Which proves that when these BBC guys are telling us to cut our carbon footprint yet they fly 275 people to the USA to cover the US midterms.
Today we can use Broadband and fax machines and conference calls, so why do people in power feel the need to make so many flights?
BA reported profits of £600 million despite being fined £150 million and where is the evidence that anyone is reducing their carbon footprints?

They pick on small people like mothers dropping kids off at school and elderly people living in rural areas. Yet the rich all fly everywhere. They even have beds in aeroplanes now and jacuzzis and please explain how that is cutting our carbon footprint.

Did you know that in London there are 180,000 minicabs and 16,000 taxis and many buses yet less than 100 are either LPG or Hybrid. Red Ken says we should only flush our toilets once a day yet he puts barriers in the way of alternative energy use.

So i agree with James Whale. The carbon footprint stuff is a tax raising scam.
If the powers gave a hoot they would do something about it.
Brazil, japan, india. These countries use a very high percentage of alternative fuels.
Germany 2 million people use Bio-diesel.

[Cruise4]

"I ...K-N-O-W that no scientist on earth disputes that greenhouse gases and their concentration in the atmosphere give us an average temperature that makes life possible"

There are scientists that dispute CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas... I'll post an article about it if you want. You should also remember that a Greenhouse is a closed system. The earth isn't so the term Greenhouse raises issues in itself.

"I know there is a relationship between average temperature and CO2 but it has not yet been proven which is cause and which is effect"

Yes it has... Temperature rises and CO2 levels rise some 800 years later, probably due to the ocean taking 1000 years to propogate out changes. 650 million years of Ice Core data show this consistently as do proxie studies and a number of other studies.

"I know burning fossil fuels have other damaging effects and that therefore the practice should be discouraged, I understand the concrete manufacturing industry has an even bigger carbon footprint than the internal combustion engine."

These are pollution issues and make no mistake I am a full on environmentalist, but basing corrections on things that don't affect the issue is counterproductive and stupid.

Here's a bit of maths that I find fairly remarkable:

TOTAL CO2 in the atmoshere = 0.038 parts per million
Man's contribution of this = 3%
3% of 0.038 = 0.00114ppm

Now that ain't much of a contribution I'm sure you'd agree. You can google those figures. There may be a bit of difference but they are widely quoted by all sides.


And here's some links that overall destroy the CO2 argument. I understand Durkin isn't your flavour of the month but he's but a part of the information contained herein:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/220807_b_swindle.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/global_warming/index.htm

What does drive Climate Change? Celestial Activity such as Cosmic Rays and Solar emmission. This correlation is continually backed up by many different sorts of studies and fits common sense. Plus records began when we were in the Little Ice Age so you'd expect temperature to be increasing slightly. This a good thing. Plants and Animals Flourish and its generally been warmer than it is now throughout history.

I hope you do take the time to look at all this material. If open minded it should change your mind or at least question further.

[Cruise4]

Hi Stelios... those bio-fuels seem to be more polluting when all stages of production are taken into account than Oil. Plus they have a secondary agenda... its part of the food reduction game. By diverting food crops to bio-fuel crops, Grain prices are going to start going up and up soon. You have to watch everything these people get up to

[karlos]

[Cruise4]

Hi Stelios, you've missed my point... 'Grain' is being moved from Food Crops to Bio-fuel crops and Grain prices will be on the up. Thats how it is. It could and should be arranged differently, but its not at present. I think they have cottoned on to the idea that this is a great tool in their food scarcity pogrom they are arranging.

I'll agree we could easily grow enough for everyone... but this current NWO system will not allow that. Bio-fuel is another CO2 led GW scam to all intents and purposes.

Obesity is possibly an issue to do with food quality not quantity. I tend to suspect this obesity is a deliberate pharma plot somewhere.

Here's one article worth reading about the negative effests of Bio-fuel:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13646

I'd say this is definately another method by which they can control the supply situation such as they have with Oil. Thats why its being pushed.

As far as I can tell we could be running cars off water and outputting Oxygen. Now there's a solution. And thats only one of a number of free energy solutions that I believe work already.

I also do not believe in Peak Oil. I think there's plenty left. Thats why Iraq pipelines are shut. I do want to stop using it completely though. When they go into Iran they'll sit on that Oil too.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Was the 19th Century Swedish scientist Arrhenius party to a NWO CO2 con trick? the relation between water vapour production attendant to the anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels and the exponential destruction of natural CO2 sinks seems to be missing from your calculations, I undestand CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have doubled post the start of the industrial revolution...but you claim CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Do recent record breaking record breaking weather events mean nothing or are you a coincidence theorist?

[karlos]

Methane is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2 an it's concentrations have increased more than co2.

Water vapour releases trapped gas like co2, however the aamount of water vapour NEVER increases because it always maintains a balance due to increased levels of precipitation.

General air pollution including DUST should be looked at not just the narrow co2 issue.
Global DIMMING
Methane
so2 sulphur dioxide
dust
as well as co2

more co2 in the air means more food because levels of photosynthesis have to rise because more co2 means more plant fuel.
surely?

[Cruise4]

I assume you relate CO2 production doubling since the start of industrial Revolution to the Industrial Revolution?

There are so many alternatives to this scenario, and the word 'doubling' is in itself a non-threatening term... get some proper research down you.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/global_warming/index.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/220807_b_swindle.htm

"the relation between water vapour production attendant to the anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels and the exponential destruction of natural CO2 sinks seems to be missing from your calculations"

Please lay out this relationship for us? Are you talikng about one thing, two things. Using complicated word association might help your ego but does little for clarity.

"Do recent record breaking record breaking weather events mean nothing or are you a coincidence theorist?"

Record Breaking is a weathermans wet dream. Again lay out what events you are talking about. Then we'll check the records.

In retrospect, in considering the CO2 fraud, the most absurd of all absurdities is the so-called Greenhouse Effect—because it defies any basis in physics and is thus easily discredited.


Extract:
The Traditional Greenhouse Theory
This theory assumes that the temperature inside a greenhouse, within its glass walls, rises when the sun's heat waves pass through the glass, heating the air. The heated air rises to the roof where it is prevented from escaping, thus warming the space. This represents the greenhouse effect theory in a nutshell.

This is Newton's Law of Cooling, which depends on some type of limiting boundary (the glass greenhouse) to operate. At night, natural heat loss occurs by convection and conduction through the glass, also according to Newton's Law.

The Swedish Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius built a greenhouse in 1896 to predict future ice ages. He proposed that the heat buildup in a greenhouse was based on the concentration of CO2, which he believed enveloped heat. Almost all scientists, particularly leading German scientists from the Kaiser Wilhelm-Max Planck Institute, as late as 1970, considered this random speculation.

Using Arrhenius' model, all greenhouse operators could merely add additional CO2 to their greenhouses and they could turn off or use smaller space heaters during the cold seasons!

However, scientific treatises and scientifically "correct" colleagues at the "Club of Rome" have since revisited this theory, bringing it back to life.

Greenhouse Reality
The so-called and actually perceivable greenhouse effect in a real greenhouse can thus only be attributed to a lack in air exchange (convection). Replacement of warm air by cold air does not readily happen. That is the reason a greenhouse cools down slower than the surrounding area, thus behaving exactly according to Newton's Law. That's all there is!

Besides, a greenhouse effect presumes a closed system, which simply does not fully exist in a greenhouse and certainly not with planet Earth. There is no definable border from the Earth to the cosmos—in the final analysis both are part of the same system.

That is why the "natural Greenhouse Effect" does not exist.

Water Vapor or CO2?
According to research, water vapor accounts for two-thirds of the ongoing heat absorption on Earth. Just like a blanket of clouds. Nevertheless, according to calculations by the U.N.'s IPCC, (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) this process is not happening. Since the IPCC panel deems the effect of water vapor simply too difficult to calculate and predict, they must call on other culprits, foremost CO2, but also CO, ozone and fluorocarbons.

To be blunt, it appears that two-thirds of the hypothetically assumed Greenhouse Effect's factors are not taken into consideration. Since they do not appear in any calculations, they make for an easy conclusion by anyone with a sound mind.

CO2—Catching Minos in a Shark's Net
Why is it that CO2 or other gases cannot contribute to heat absorption? CO2 does have the potential to store heat, but there is another consideration which collapses the reasoning behind the CO2 Greenhouse Effect. There is this law of physics: liquid or solid bodies, i.e. oceans, clouds and earth, emit and absorb energy via a spectrum of rays. Gases such as CO2 can only selectively absorb or emit energy, a fact easily verifiable in any elementary chemistry textbook.

Based on the aforementioned facts, the Greenhouse Effect does not exist; neither in a garden greenhouse nor on Earth. To put it more directly—even if the atmosphere consisted of 100% CO2, the Earth's atmosphere would be unable to heat up as claimed; it is impossible according to the law of physics. So, that leads to another principle of physics.

The ABCs of Physics
Certain elements are heavier than air, and others are lighter than air. Some elements rise, like a helium balloon at a carnival, having a molecular weight of 4. Others descend, such as CO2 which has a molecular weight of 44, while air is only 29. That means CO2 naturally concentrates near the ground, where plants can derive nourishment.

By contrast, in the upper atmospheric regions where CO2 is accused of wreaking havoc, the CO2 concentration lowers to under 10 ppmv (parts per million by volume). These findings were discussed extensively in the 1980s in the journal Nature when it was still possible to publish such research results.

In a nutshell, the CO2 shell Arrhenius had postulated does not exist. CO2, for all intents, does not exist in the atmosphere where people imagine the Greenhouse Effect to be.

What is CO2's significance in the atmosphere?
As discussed in a prior article, CO2 constitutes a mere 0.038 percent of the atmosphere. Human CO2 production accounts for a mere 3 percent of the total CO2. Then what influence would we notice if worldwide CO2 levels were reduced by 10 or 20 percent? Such a reduction would have no effect whatsoever, since given the Earth's age, the portion of CO2 is uniquely low; during other Earth ages it was much higher. Actually, during the carbon era, our Earth saw a value as high as 6,000 ppmv. Yet life continues.

Entitled to Know Reality
The environmental political debate for a reduction of CO2 is a distant Utopian goal. In actuality, for over a decade, hysterics about climate changes have brought no practical solutions. An actual reduction is actually undesirable, but the menacing specter has to be kept alive.

All this continues, despite the 2003 Berlin Ministry of Ecology's pronouncement regarding CO2, "…such scenarios are not prognoses, but merely a broad spectrum of assumptions for future developments and their accompanying influences affecting global climate."

They conveniently left the back door wide open.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

So the human animal can destroy the carbon sink, cover it with concrete and tarmac, pump FKA greenhouse gases into the atmosphere using fossil fuel fire as a tool to its hearts content without fear of the consequences ref. climate change, you heard it here first folks! Great news for the oil companies.

Blimey, all those wasted years taking bsc honours environmental studies and technology tsk! I would have been better employed studying the bottom of a glass down the uni'...more.

[Cruise4]

Seems you are getting mixed up with Pollution issues. I am only pointing out that CO2 led Global Warming is garbage. Climate Change is driven by the Sun and Cosmic rays. I'm passionate about the environment and pollution issues but I want to tackle the real reasons behind this Planetary vandalism, not make a fool of myself by basing opinion on proveably faulty so called science.

I've uploaded this PDF Book by Dissenting Scientific Voices:
http://rapidshare.com/files/51853674/dissent.pdf
(Scroll down and pick the 'FREE' option)
(Anyone can use this link)

Are you a shill or disinfo agent! You obviously aren't looking at any of the information I keep pointing you towards? Is your opinion cast in stone or something? I did environmental Studies too. It was the lightweight choice alongside Computing Science and Business Studies (BSc)

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Sorry , am I being dense? if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are not what is trapping longwave radiation from the sun reflected off the earths surface and giving us a habitable average temperature in the biosphere...what is the mechanism that makes life supporting temps' on earth possible? This is really radical stuff!

I can't see any reference to the destruction of carbon sinks in your bumph ref. anthropegenic CO2, I haven't tried the Alex Jones (gawd bless 'im) link though.

[karlos]

I believe Carbon Dioxide is NOT the problem
so yes i believe it is a lie we are being told.

Britain used to be covered with ice a few thousand years ago. The glacier reached London and has since melted and retreated. So the earth generally has been warming on it's own without any influence from industrialisation. Look at the various factual bits of evidence.
Areas such as the UK, Europe, North America have very detailed studies into glaciers and erosion. Which means for there to have been glaciers the area must have been COLDER.
The earth is getting warmer on it's own.

Manmade pollution such as methane, dust and other contaminants such as depleted uranium and barium are far more harmful than co2.
We eat and drink co2 every day. But more importantly plants eat co2 and cannot survive without it.
Air contains 78% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases, and average around 1% of water.
If co2 levels rise from say 0.038% of the atmosphere to 0.039% of the atmosphere although this would appear a huge leap it in fact will not change the world that much.

Lets say you have a solar flare
Sea levels rise because of increased precipitation. Surface temperatures rise because of increased radiation.
The more co2 in the air and the more cloud cover actually protects us fro solar flare radiation.

Why were the media NOT speaking out against the BUNCEFIELD fire whhich probably put more pollutants into the air than 1,000,000 cars driven for a whole year.
The Greek forest fires?
How many light bulbs will need to be switched off to compensate for that?

I am very much in favour of renewable energy and new technology.
But none of the media of the government are pushing for low emission cars, aviation fuel taxation, hydrogen cars.
They want more taxes but carry on using oil.

[Easy Rider]

The earth is expanding.

In the past there were no oceans, only shallow seas.

If the earth is expanding and it's girth growing then that must mean it is hollow

Check this out

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6955442548406320017&q=the+e xpanding+earth&total=92&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[rodin]

[karlos]

Stars all start off white and as they cool and get older they grow in size but change colour
A red giant being the oldest and coolest kind of star.

Our own sun is yellow and will gradually become orange but will also become bigger and expand.

The sun is the number one factor in earth temperature far more than any manmade pollution. Protection from the sun's radiation is one thing again which the earth does on its own
The seven layers of our atmosphere starting with our radiation shield - the van allen belts
So taxing carbon is very much like taxing air.
But if they have to tax it they must tax it evenly and equally.
LPG is cleaner than petrol
Bio diesel is cleaner than diesel
aviation fuel etc
Dust pollution, toxic chemicals, methane, depleted uranium etc are far more harmful to the earth than carbon dioxide gas.
More co2 will mean more plant growth. Almost like a natural fertiliser.

I am not encouraging more co2 i just want to expose the global warming lie. Taxing people for a natural event and blaming it on the public who actually are powerless to stop it.
Ban most air travel or at least tax aviation fuel properly would be my suggestion.

[Mr-Bridger]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sanandaji9.html

The Global Warming Scam

by Nima Sanandaji and Fred Goldberg

The media portrays a dramatic image of how the ice is melting in the polar regions as a consequence of global warming. We are warned that the North Pole might become icefree during the summer months at the end of this century and that the polar bears might become extinct due to this development.

But is this really a realistic image? Sure, there is research that indicates that the ice sheets are being reduced, but there are also studies that show the complete opposite. An example of this is a study in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letter where the Swedish researcher Peter Winsor compares data collected by submarines below the Arctic ice. His conclusions are that the thickness of the ice has been almost constant between 1986 and 1997.

If you look at the South Pole there are studies that show an increase in the mass of the ice. In a study published in the journal Nature a number of polar researchers showed that they had observed a net cooling of 0.7 degrees in the region between 1986 and 2000. Another study published in Science showed that the East-Antarctic ice sheet had grown with 45 million metric tones between 1992 and 2003.

Are the ices growing or melting? The simple answer is that there exist studies that point to both directions, perhaps indicating that scientists know relatively little about global climate. But what counts to most ordinary people is what media is reporting, and media is often highlighting the most alarming studies and seldom report of studies that go against the notion that human activity leads to global warming. To put it simply, the news is filtered through an environmentalist view of the world.

An interesting example of how media sometimes gets it wrong is how journalists reported that there had never been so little ice in the Arctic than in 2005. This claim was based on satellite images by NASA which showed that the geographic extent of the ice sheet had never been so small since measurement began in 1979. One must however keep in fact that about half of the ice in the Arctic melts each summer and that two months before this measurment the extent of the ice sheet was the same as the previous year. The problem is that satellite images show the surface of the ice but not the thickness.

Capten Årnell at the summer expedition with the polar-ship Oden could tell that he had never seen so much ice in the Arctic than in 2005. It was with great difficulty that he had passed through the region. What had happened in 2005 seems to be that the ice had packed densely against the Canadian part of the Arctic. The geographical extent had been reduced but the ice was thicker.

As for polar bears, much points to that their numbers are increasing rather than diminishing. Mitch Taylor, a Canadian expert on animal populations, estimates that the number of polar bears in Canada has increased from 12 000 to 15 000 the past decade. Steven C Amstrup and his college have studied a population of polar bears in Alaska and reported that the number of females had increased from 600 to 900 between 1976 and 1992. Even a report from the WWF which is entitled "Polar bears at risk" and warns that the populations of the polar bears might become extinct due to global warming, supports that the number of polar bears is increasing. In the report the polar bears in the world are divided into 20 populations. It shows out that only 2 of these populations are decreasing, while 10 are stable, 5 are growing and 3 are not possible to comment about.

Global climate is an important issue to debate, but it is sad that what is communicated often has a clear shifting towards the worst-case scenarios and the doomsday theories. There is no reason to scare people by giving them only one side of the argument.

[utopiated]